Judiciary Committee- House
Video
Transcript
1 document
Bills discussed (31)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
SB441
· 6 mentions in transcript, chapter, agenda
Matched: “Senate Bill 441. Senator Hester, you recognized to go to the end of”
|
TO CREATE THE JUNK LAWSUIT PREVENTION ACT OF 2025. | Hester | Died on House Calendar at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1865
Act 976
· 4 mentions in agenda, chapter, transcript
Matched: “AGENDA (Revised 4/14/25 @ 7:47 PM) Added HB1865 House Committee on Judiciary Tuesday, April 15, 2025 8:00 A…”
|
TO CREATE AN ENHANCED PENALTY FOR CERTAIN OFFENSES AGAINST A CHILD. | Vaught | Notification that HB1865 is now Act 976 |
|
HB1877
Act 977
· 4 mentions in agenda, transcript, chapter
Matched: “…aty, Jr. CONCUR IN SENATE AMENDMENT Number Sponsor Subtitle HB1877 S. Meeks CONCERNING CRIMINAL OFFENSES RELATED TO POSSESSION…”
|
CONCERNING CRIMINAL OFFENSES RELATED TO POSSESSION OF SEXUALLY EXPLICIT MATERIAL THAT DEPICTS A CHILD; AND … | S. Meeks | Notification that HB1877 is now Act 977 |
|
HB1033
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…VENTION ACT OF 2025. DEFERRED BILLS Number Sponsor Subtitle HB1033 McCullough TO CREATE THE "ARKANSAS RED FLAG LAW"; AND TO CR…”
|
TO CREATE THE "ARKANSAS RED FLAG LAW"; AND TO CREATE AN EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER … | McCullough | Recommended for study in the Interim by the … |
|
HB1136
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1136 Achor TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE CRIMINAL RECORD SEALING AC…”
|
TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE CRIMINAL RECORD SEALING ACT OF 2013; AND TO PROHIBIT A COURT … | Achor | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1141
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…estrictions designating areas as 'Members and Staff Only'. HB1141 R. Scott TO CREATE CRIMINAL OFFENSES RELATED TO DECEPTIVE A…”
|
TO CREATE CRIMINAL OFFENSES RELATED TO DECEPTIVE AND INJURIOUS MEDIA IN THE COURSE OF ELECTION … | R. Scott Richardson | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1430
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…ON WHEN A PERSON IS SUBJECT TO AN ACTIVE WARRANT OF ARREST. HB1430 K. Moore TO AMEND THE DEFINITIONS UNDER THE DOMESTIC ABUSE…”
|
TO AMEND THE DEFINITIONS UNDER THE DOMESTIC ABUSE ACT OF 1991. | K. Moore | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1431
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…AMEND THE DEFINITIONS UNDER THE DOMESTIC ABUSE ACT OF 1991. HB1431 K. Moore TO AMEND THE DEFINITIONS UNDER THE DOMESTIC ABUSE…”
|
TO AMEND THE DEFINITIONS UNDER THE DOMESTIC ABUSE ACT OF 1991; AND TO PROHIBIT THE … | K. Moore | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1473
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…AND TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF HARBORING ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS. HB1473 Pilkington TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING HEALTH-RELATED CASH…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING HEALTH-RELATED CASH DISCOUNT CARDS. | Pilkington | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1481
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…GING IN COURSE OF CONTROL OR DISTURBING THE PEACE EX PARTE. HB1481 Long TO CREATE THE ANTI-ATF COMMANDEERING ACT; AND TO PROHI…”
|
TO CREATE THE ANTI-ATF COMMANDEERING ACT; AND TO PROHIBIT THE PROVISION OF MATERIAL AID AND … | Long | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1535
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1535 Duffield TO PROVIDE AN ENHANCED SENTENCE FOR PERSONS CONVIC…”
|
TO PROVIDE AN ENHANCED SENTENCE FOR PERSONS CONVICTED OF RAPE OF A CHILD TWELVE YEARS … | Duffield | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1553
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1553 Ray TO REPEAL THE PROHIBITION AGAINST THE SALE AND DISTRIBU…”
|
TO REPEAL THE PROHIBITION AGAINST THE SALE AND DISTRIBUTION OF NOVELTY LIGHTERS. | Ray | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1655
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…TION AGAINST THE SALE AND DISTRIBUTION OF NOVELTY LIGHTERS. HB1655 Long TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF HUMAN SMUGGLING; AND TO CREAT…”
|
TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF HUMAN SMUGGLING; AND TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF HARBORING ILLEGAL … | Long | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1663
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…CERTAIN PROPERTY USE RESTRICTIONS BY GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES. HB1663 K. Brown TO PROHIBIT AN AWARD OF ALIMONY OR TERMINATE ALIMO…”
|
TO PROHIBIT AN AWARD OF ALIMONY OR TERMINATE ALIMONY FOR A PERSON WHO HAS BEEN … | K. Brown | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1664
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…VIOLATE THE TERMS OF THEIR PROBATION OR SUSPENDED SENTENCE. HB1664 K. Brown TO AMEND "QUINCY'S LAW" CONCERNING PHYSICAL EXAMS…”
|
TO AMEND "QUINCY'S LAW" CONCERNING PHYSICAL EXAMS AND OTHER TESTING IN AN INVESTIGATION INVOLVING ALLEGED … | K. Brown | Recommended for study in the Interim by the … |
|
HB1676
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…MEND THE LAW CONCERNING HEALTH-RELATED CASH DISCOUNT CARDS. HB1676 Womack TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING GARNISHMENT AGAINST THE…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING GARNISHMENT AGAINST THE STATE OR A SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE; … | Womack | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1678
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1678 Long TO AMEND THE ABORTION-INDUCING DRUGS SAFETY ACT TO INC…”
|
TO AMEND THE ABORTION-INDUCING DRUGS SAFETY ACT TO INCREASE THE CRIMINAL PENALTIES AND CLARIFY THE … | Long | Recommended for study in the Interim by the … |
|
HB1754
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…ER THE CHILD MALTREATMENT ACT; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY. HB1754 Gonzales TO CREATE THE PRIVATE PROPERTY PROTECTION ACT; AND…”
|
TO CREATE THE PRIVATE PROPERTY PROTECTION ACT; AND TO PROHIBIT CERTAIN PROPERTY USE RESTRICTIONS BY … | Gonzales | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1765
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…CONSENSUAL ACTIVITIES INVOLVING INTIMATE DIGITAL FORGERIES. HB1765 Underwood TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING DOMESTIC BATTERING IN…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING DOMESTIC BATTERING IN THE THIRD DEGREE; AND TO AMEND THE … | Underwood | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1823
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1823 Duffield TO ESTABLISH THE DISRUPT EXPLICIT FORGED IMAGES AN…”
|
TO ESTABLISH THE DISRUPT EXPLICIT FORGED IMAGES AND NONCONSENSUAL EDITS ACT OF 2025; AND TO … | Duffield | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1885
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…E OFFENSE OF POSSESSION OF DRUG PARAPHERNALIA. Page 2 of 3 HB1885 Barnett CONCERNING LAW ENFORCEMENT; AND TO REQUIRE A LAW EN…”
|
CONCERNING LAW ENFORCEMENT; AND TO REQUIRE A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER INVOLVED IN A DEADLY USE … | Barnett | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1947
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1947 Clowney TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE OFFENSE OF POSSESSI…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE OFFENSE OF POSSESSION OF DRUG PARAPHERNALIA. | Clowney | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1948
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…HE SEVENTEENTH DISTRICT OF THE STATE DISTRICT COURT SYSTEM. HB1948 Joey Carr TO AMEND THE CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH THE OFFENSE O…”
|
TO AMEND THE CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH THE OFFENSE OF NEGLIGENT HOMICIDE IS COMMITTED; AND TO … | Joey Carr | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1953
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…TO SUBPOENA CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS BEFORE A HEARING OR TRIAL. HB1953 Torres TO PROVIDE FOR A SURCHARGE TO BE ASSESSED ON INMATE…”
|
TO PROVIDE FOR A SURCHARGE TO BE ASSESSED ON INMATE PHONE CALLS TO OFFSET THE … | Torres | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1978
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…NCIDENT TO BE PLACED ON TEMPORARY LEAVE AND ATTEND THERAPY. HB1978 Gazaway TO ADD AN ADDITIONAL JUDGESHIP TO THE SEVENTEENTH D…”
|
TO ADD AN ADDITIONAL JUDGESHIP TO THE SEVENTEENTH DISTRICT OF THE STATE DISTRICT COURT SYSTEM. | Gazaway | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1980
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1980 Gazaway TO CREATE THE TECHNOLOGY AND ENERGY FOR SUSTAINABLE…”
|
TO CREATE THE TECHNOLOGY AND ENERGY FOR SUSTAINABLE LOGISTICS ACT (TESLA); AND TO ADD ELECTRIC … | Gazaway | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB277
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…ASE THE CRIMINAL PENALTIES AND CLARIFY THE CIVIL PENALTIES. SB277 J. Bryant TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE CRIMINAL RECORD SEALIN…”
|
TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE CRIMINAL RECORD SEALING ACT OF 2013; AND TO PERMIT THE FILING … | J. Bryant | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB321
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB321 J. Bryant TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE STATE ADMINISTRAT…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE STATE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE FUND. | J. Bryant | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB355
Act 1000
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…CAL INFRASTRUCTURE". REGULAR AGENDA Number Sponsor Subtitle SB355 J. Bryant TO AMEND THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF OBSTRUCTING GOVE…”
|
TO AMEND THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF OBSTRUCTING GOVERNMENTAL OPERATIONS. | J. Bryant | Notification that SB355 is now Act 1000 |
|
SB629
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB629 Caldwell TO ALLOW AN OFFICER OF A CLOSELY HELD CORPORATION…”
|
TO ALLOW AN OFFICER OF A CLOSELY HELD CORPORATION TO REPRESENT THE CORPORATION IN COURT … | Caldwell | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1871
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1871 Gazaway TO REQUIRE A PERIOD OF INCARCERATION FOR DEFENDANTS…”
|
TO REQUIRE A PERIOD OF INCARCERATION FOR DEFENDANTS WHO REPEATEDLY VIOLATE THE TERMS OF THEIR … | Gazaway | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
Machine transcript
May contain errors. Verify important quotations against the official video.
About transcript accuracy
- Source
- Whisper
- Model
- ggml-large-v3-turbo.bin
- Processing date
- October 6, 2026
to order. Welcome to our last meeting of the session, unless something falls apart in the afternoon, and then you'll hear from me. But we are at our last meeting. We have a couple of things we need to take up. First, we're going to go to concur and Senate amendments. So House Bill 1877, Representative Richardson, if you'll go to the end of the table and present the amendment to House Bill 1877. Good morning, committee.
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
0:30
Thank you, Madam Chair. Scott Richardson, House District 13. The amendment for this, it comes back to us from the Senate, is in relation to how the bill applies for testers attempting to ensure that their AI software does not create the types of images that are forbidden in this and giving them some leeway to be able to do that testing without breaking the law. Pretty simple amendment, but it was agreed upon on the other end,
Speaker 6
1:02
and so with that, I'm happy to try to answer questions.
Members, are there any questions? Seeing no questions, you're recognized to close for
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
1:10
the amendment. I'm closed for the amendment. Good bill. Appreciate a good vote, and I make a motion
Speaker 6
1:15
we concur and send an amendment. Members, we have a motion to concur
and send an amendment on the table. Is there any discussion of the motion? Seeing no discussion, all in favor, please say aye. Any opposed, say no. The ayes have it. We have concurred.
Next, we have concurrence and send an amendment to House Bill 1865. Representative Vaught, you're recognized. We have two amendments to this
one, so members, we're going to get those passed out. Let's get those passed out first, Representative, and then we'll come back to you.
Can I have one, please? Oh, thank you. All right, Representative Vaught, you're recognized to identify yourself and present the Senate amendments.
Representative DeAnn Vaught
Unverified
2:33
Thank you, Madam Chair. DM Vaught, District 87. Amendment 1 is adding some co-sponsors.
Members, you've heard explanation of Amendment 1. We have a motion to concur in the Senate Amendment No. 1. Any discussion? Seeing no discussion, all in favor of the motion, please say aye. Any opposed? The ayes have it. Amendment No. 1 has been adopted. Let's move to Amendment No. 2. Amendment No.
2 is we were trying to make sure that we didn't mess up anything in the
Representative DeAnn Vaught
Unverified
3:03
PROTECT Act. So we had to go back and fix a few things to make sure that they didn't conflict with each other.
Members, you've heard an explanation of Amendment Number 2. We have a motion to concur on Amendment Number 2. Is there any discussion? Seeing no discussion, all in favor, please say aye. Any opposed, say no. The ayes have it. We have concurred in Amendment Number
1 and Number 2. Thank you, ma'am. Thank you,
committee. Members, let's go to our regular agenda. We're going to take up Senate Bill 441.
Senator Hester, you're recognized to go to the end of the
table and present Senate Bill 441. Just both of you identify yourself for
Senator Bart Hester
Unverified
4:00
the record and you'll be recognized. Bart Hester, State Senator, District 33. Representative Aaron Pilken, District 45 of Johnson County. You're recognized. Members, I'm pleased to be able to present to you the Lobbyist Employment Bill of 2025.
I'm sure you've heard plenty about this bill. And look, it's far simpler than I think maybe you've been pitched to on either side. I think regardless of your opinion of lawsuit reform or not, I don't think anybody in this room is for junk lawsuits. Lawsuits that tie up our court systems, lawsuits that affect our local businesses, and ultimately affect our constituents. You know, my pitch to you today is if this bill does not proceed, does not pass, how are your constituents better, any of your constituents?
If this bill passes, I can assure you that many of your constituents will be better off. We're dealing with the companies that are coming into Arkansas, the one in particular that really is the impetus for this bill that has sued Blue Cross and Blue Shield many times, sued Walmart, sued Simmons Bank all in the last few years. They'll continue to come into the state of Arkansas and find what I believe are these junk lawsuits where, and this is the key to the whole thing, no one was harmed. No one was harmed.
The plaintiff on this bill admits they never had a good Rx card, and they were never harmed. Let me show you. So this bill, it does a lot more than just this, but the impetus for this bill is current ongoing litigation, and I think that's one of the attributes to this bill, that we stand up and address something that's currently going on that is not okay. I've got a good Rx card. Y'all may not allow me to show it, but on the front it says, this is not insurance.
The whole basis of this is that's not in bold enough. That's why we're here today. An out-of-state law firm has came in, partnered with a local one, to sue businesses that are helping people in Arkansas get prescription drugs cheaper because it wasn't bold enough on the front. No one was harmed. What this legislation does on page 3, lines 7 and 8, it adds, if injured, if no one is harmed, how do we continue to let people come to the state of Arkansas, sue our businesses, tie up our courtrooms, cost us money when no one was harmed?
That's why I named this bill the junk lawsuit bill. we can go through a lot of other things. And one of the biggest questions that I believe is an attribute to this bill is it is retroactive. It's retroactive intentionally and for a purpose. And again, I will say this, regardless of how you feel about lawsuit reform, no one in this room, I believe, is for these type of junk lawsuits that aren't benefiting any of our constituents. I'm going to open it up for questions,
And if you expect me to battle legal wits with Representative Springer or Collins, I will surrender right now. But if you agree with me that we should be able to protect our constituents from this that's happening that benefits no one. Like if there are legal payouts, who do they go to? No one was harmed. I'll tell you who they go to. Law firms. I call them tall building lawyers not in Arkansas. or who's going to get any money that's going to harm your constituents
that are using things like this good Rx. With that, I'm happy to answer any questions.
Members, are there any questions? Representative Springer, you're recognized for a question.
Representative Joy Springer
Unverified
8:00
Thank you, Madam Chair, and good morning. I'm happy that you suggested that I would be asking you a question, so you put me on the spot. So I will ask you a question. So you've admitted, that was going to be one of the questions I was going to ask anyway, you admitted that there is pending litigation regarding this? Yes. And the litigation is still pending?
Yes. And there are several lawsuits that have been filed? Yes. And they're still in court? Yes. They have not been dismissed by the court? Yes. When
Speaker 31
8:29
was it dismissed? No, they were not dismissed. Thank you.
Representative Nicole Clowney
Unverified
8:33
Representative Clowney, you're recognized for a question? Thank you, Madam Chair. I didn't really have a question, Senator Hester, until you didn't name drop me as a lawyer. So here we are. No, I'm trying to understand the change that you're making. And this may be, I don't know if people are going to speak for, again, so maybe this is a better question for a lawyer.
But question in case you might be able to answer it. If these folks aren't injured currently, how do they get standing in court when they bring a
Speaker 34
8:59
suit like this? Do you know the answer to that? I do not
Chair
Unverified
9:08
know the answer to that, but clearly there is a court allowing them standing.
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
9:13
Okay, thank you. Members, any other questions? Representative Richardson, you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thanks for being here and bringing this. I know it can't be easy bringing a contentious piece of legislation like this. My first question is associated with you brought up the not insurance label that's on the card now.
When did they start adding that to the card? I do not know. But the lawsuit is not about it being on the card. It's about it's not bold enough. Is that correct? is correct interesting okay thank you
members any other representative betty you recognize for a question
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
9:50
just one question i was listening on my way over this morning because it's been noted i always run a little late for
judiciary we would expect nothing less at the end of the session that
you would be on time so
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
10:03
well you know i'm accustomed those 10 a.m meetings eight o'clock earlier for
me. In your opening, you said that the person filing the suit had no, there was no Arkansan on this suit. Is that correct?
Senator Bart Hester
Unverified
10:23
No, there is an Arkansas law firm that filed the suit on behalf of, not an individual, but a group. But a group. Okay.
Chair
Unverified
10:33
Representative Collins, you're recognized for a question. Thank you,
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
10:36
Madam Chair. And I understand what you're saying about law firms kind of coming in to the state and swarming the legal system and all that. Do you have any concern that if we pass this, what we're going to have next session is people that are in litigation coming back and trying to retroactively change other laws because they're going to realize, well, this is a way I can get out of my potential liability. I just need to go and find a sympathetic ear at the legislature, and this will be my get-out-of-liability card.
Senator Bart Hester
Unverified
11:06
I think it's a great question. I think the answer is yes, but not because of this bill, but because I've dealt with it for six consecutive sessions. Every session we come down here and someone's seeking to pass law that affects current litigation. And then this, well, not this specific committee, but over the last couple of committees, both the House and Senate, Judiciary Committees, and Chambers have agreed to pass retroactive legislation. You're
Chair
Unverified
11:31
recognized for a follow-up. And that actually
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
11:34
was right on my follow-up. I just don't know, and I don't recall, how often have we done this where we have gone
back and retroactively passed a law that affects ongoing litigation to, I guess it would effectively move the claims that they're making in this case. Is that something we do on a regular basis? We do not do it on a regular basis.
Speaker 31
11:53
We do do it. Okay, thanks. Members, any other
questions? Seeing no further questions, we do have some individuals who have signed up to speak. to speak
against the bill we have bart calhoun mr calhoun if you'll go to the end of the table
identify yourself you're recognized to make your statement morning madam madam
Speaker 46
12:24
chair bart calhoun attorney with mcdaniel wolf law firm here in
Representative Joy Springer
Unverified
12:27
little rock formerly in a past life consumer protection attorney with the attorney general's office I'm here today on behalf of the Burt and Annette Mullins Foundation. Y'all might have heard that name before. That is the plaintiff in the lawsuit. I want to tell you a little bit about the foundation first. It was set up by Burt and Annette Mullins before they passed.
They passed a year or two ago. If you want some more information on them, you can go find Mr. Burt's obituary. He passed away at the ripe age of 95 and lived a heck of a life in Pope County, banking and in the military for over 20 years, highly involved in philanthropy and business development. A lot of you have probably heard of Nuclear One. Some would say Nuclear One probably wouldn't have been done without Mr. Mullins. So before they passed, they set up a foundation that would go to, it's very broad in its objectives,
basically to protect Arkansas consumers across the board, but also in pursuit of advancing Pope County economically, but also protecting those that are the least vulnerable. So I want to start out by saying the foundation is the plaintiff, and this is the only lawsuit it's filed. I'll go and be forward with you on the front end. I'm not involved in the lawsuit. If I was, I'm happy to tell you I'm not a high-rise lawyer. We only have two stories at my building and I could jump off
and probably only break an ankle. So this bill is about, this statute is about consumer protection and I appreciate Senator Hester's candor, but this is not a simple, this is not a simple act. This is not a simple bill. This is not something that's simply going to address the standing issue as it's called. Now, the court has already ruled in this case that they're standing based on the statute because a foundation has standing to file suit. These are kind of like private AG bills.
So when I was at the Consumer Protection's office, and I can't speak on behalf of the AG's office now, I have no idea how many people they employ, but when I was there, you only have so many attorneys, you only have so many investigators, so much support staff, you can't prosecute every single violation of Arkansas Consumer Protection Statute. We rely heavily on individuals being able to do that. And at its heart, this bill is undercutting a Consumer Protection Statute. It's no different than if we were going in right now and cutting down the DTPA. This is not just about standing.
If all this bill did was say, okay, you have to be injured and we're going to do some fixes on the standing issue, then I think we could probably have a pretty good conversation about that and what purposes that may serve. But I want to go down through with you some things this bill does that has nothing to do with standing. And basically at the end, what my conclusion is going to be is that if you pass the bill it is today, you might as well just go ahead and take out the entire act because it will serve zero purpose anymore.
So first, I want to go down to page one, lines 29 through 30. This is the exchange for fees language. this basically makes the statute only applicable to companies that accept fees why is this important because the proponents of this bill that's probably been talking to you all good rx does most of their um issues most of their cards for for no fee so well that's great they're providing a great service to consumers why does that matter well the thing is is because they're not doing out of the goodness of their heart they're not a non-profit they're getting money
from somewhere whether it's pbms or somewhere in the pharmaceutical chain just because they're not getting paid by the consumer doesn't mean the consumer doesn't need the disclosures that are set forth in subsections one through seven in the statute or whatever it is including the fact that people need to know about that there these cards aren't insurance well you may look at these cards and go well I think it's obviously they're not insurance but we're talking about protecting delete the most vulnerable consumers in the state of Arkansas we're not talking about people who are sitting on a judiciary House committee
that see these kind of legislation comes through on a daily basis. The worst part of the bill, I think, is if you look at pages 3 to 4 on the limits for relief, it negates the penalty provision, but I think far more detrimental is the fact that it gets rid of the availability for attorney's fees. Now, you say, well, aren't we talking about high-rise lawyers now and the attorney's fees they get? No, we're talking about the reimbursement for the hours worked. So let's say, let me start out with this.
There's a misconception among a lot of people that if you're successful in litigation, you automatically get attorney's fees. In Arkansas, we go by what's called the American Rule, and that's what most states go by. And that's, it says this, if there's not a statute or other authority that says you get attorney's fees, then each party pays their own attorney's fees. So let's say that John Doe gets one of these cards. He thinks it's insurance. He goes to the emergency room. Comes out of the emergency room with a $10,000 bill.
He realizes nothing was paid. He's $10,000 in debt, which, of course, you all know where that goes. And he's damaged. It's $10,000 in debt. There's no attorney's fee provision in this bill. How does he bring a suit on this? He can't afford to pay for it by the hour. There's no reimbursement for attorney's fees on the back end. No one's going to take that on a contingency basis. It essentially kills this statute. There is no way anyone that's going to lose--
and $10,000 is a minimal amount of money for a lawsuit,
Speaker 49
18:15
but it is an extremely high amount of money for the most vulnerable consumers in Arkansas.
Speaker 51
18:22
Third, if you go down to page 3, lines 24 to 34, there's this 30-day written notice and cure period.
Representative Joy Springer
Unverified
18:29
And I think about any company would love one of these. Because basically what it says in here is, as long as you cure, as long as GoodRx or whoever the prescription card company is cures that, then they're good.
Before a consumer could even bring an action, let's say you go into the emergency room, you're down that $10,000, you're feeling hurt, now you're wondering what to do. Well, the first step you've got to do is you've got to send them a letter. Where do you send them a letter to? This is getting difficult because we're talking about the most vulnerable population. so you send them a letter and they get 30 days and 30 days they're going to write back go no we didn't do anything wrong so then it's up to the court for one when you go if you could even find a lawyer to take your case first it's up to the court well we got to decide whether there was a
cure in the first place before they can even go go about reaching the merits of the case now i think this 30-day provision is likely would likely be challenged in court i don't have a crystal ball to tell you how a judge would rule, but in the past, procedural issues like this are generally left to the courts and by the rules of civil procedure in the Arkansas Supreme Court, and it's kind of a separation of powers issue. And then lastly, of course, is the retroactivity on page 4.
One of two things will happen with this. There's case law on whether a retroactivity clause is lawful or not. There's case law that will say that it's not. I'm sure people at GoodRx will come into this lawsuit that's in and they say that it is good. One of two things will happen. This bill will either affect pending litigation or it will be ruled unconstitutional. And we won't know the answer to that. Probably the next general session, it will probably be pending before the Arkansas Court of Appeals,
and we still won't know then. So I close by saying this. I'm here on behalf of a foundation that is Arkansas-based, Arkansans that spent their life trying to help consumers and help the economic development of the state of Arkansas. This is not a windfall for attorneys or out-of-state attorneys. This is a very specific statute on, you know, this isn't like it's curing all junk lawsuits in the state of Arkansas. This is a very specific statute, very specific harm that it's aimed to prevent. And if the lawsuit
is successful, then money goes back to the targeted population. It's not like the attorneys get 100% of the money that comes in and this foundation has just been set up to help out of state attorneys. This is a foundation that's set up to help Arkansas consumers, and if this bill is passed, like I said before, there would be no purpose for
this statute anyway. Mr. Calhoun, you're willing to take questions? Of course, Madam Chair.
Representative Gonzalez, you're recognized for a question.
Representative Justin Gonzales
Unverified
21:37
Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm really undecided on this. I hadn't decided if there is a right side on this, but can you tell me exactly how Arkansas consumers were harmed and how will they benefit from this lawsuit? How the consumers will benefit? Yes. So if you look at people who were harmed specifically, I want to know exactly how they were harmed and exactly how those people that were harmed will benefit from this.
Representative Joy Springer
Unverified
22:06
Sure. Well, it's two parts. One, and I will go and be candid that I'm not involved in the litigation. I'm not a lawyer on the litigation. I don't represent the foundation in the litigation, so the ins and outs of it. So I apologize on the front end for that. But two parts on that. One is that these lawsuits act as deterrents to companies and to enforce the law. Like I said earlier, it's kind of like a private AG action, what's called private AG action.
They have them throughout the country. There's some federal actions like this, and they're meant to kind of fill in the gaps where the regulators don't have the time or the resources to pursue every single violation of Arkansas law. So I'll say that on one end. Now, to the foundation, whatever money it gets will be set aside to go towards the targeted population. And that means any consumers that come forward that have been harmed by a good RX card, whether that's the insurance, you know, whether that's the emergency room, hypothetical I was speaking of,
or another one where they've just gone to their doctor's office or things like that. But the money will be used. It's from
Speaker 58
23:14
a foundation. It's not going into, you know, into the pockets of people that haven't been
Speaker 35
23:21
injured. You need a follow-up? Yeah, so I'm not sure that either
Representative Justin Gonzales
Unverified
23:25
of those questions was really answered. So the foundation, you're saying that people who were harmed could apply to the foundation to pay their medical bills? I
Speaker 49
23:35
honestly don't know the procedure on that because I'm not involved in the litigation.
Representative Justin Gonzales
Unverified
23:40
Okay. And back to the first question about these people who... I think the court would hold the
Speaker 49
23:47
funds. I don't think, like, the foundation would just receive this windfall of money and people would be applying to a foundation, no. Okay. All
right. Thank you. Representative Hudson, you're recognized
Representative Ashley Hudson
Unverified
24:03
for a question. Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Calhoun, as you read this bill, do you see,
I'm concerned about this idea that, if I'm in the language, about a
cure being possible do you in your read of this bill do you see any language that that explains
or defines how we determine a cure is possible and who makes that determination and no that's
Representative Joy Springer
Unverified
24:34
one of the issues with the bill is that it's very vague in that so you know i think
it would ultimately have to be up to a court to determine what is possible or not and then the court's gonna have to interpret the statute and then what's the meaning if possible you know I think the what I would ask the committee to do is look at all other consumer protection statutes in the state of Arkansas whether it's telemarketing home solicitations you know used car by dealer act anything like that you don't see this kind of language in that this 30-day care period at least not with the kind of broad vague language that's in here because
this is difficult to interpret. It's going to be difficult for a court to handle, and it's ultimately going to, it's going to be
Speaker 49
25:21
a deterrent for anybody to file a suit, and when the suit's filed, it's going to
Representative Ashley Hudson
Unverified
25:26
be a reason to drag the suit on. You're recognized. Thank you. So I think that we kind of both agree that in
this case, the parties are going to end up in court early anyway, maybe even earlier than they would if they were just simply trying to pursue settlement between the two of them because you're going to have to have a court determine what the word possible means and whether
the cure is possible. I wanted to ask you, too, though, kind of along that same line, if you would agree with me that it's very unlikely that a large corporation, especially one that operates in multiple states, is going to be advised by their attorney to provide an express written statement of fault, especially in the event of a claim that could be made against them in other states and where that express written statement of fault could be used against them in other
states as evidence to reflect that they have fault in those states. So would you agree with me that what we're doing here also chills the ability both because of the fact that we're going to have to go to court about what the possibilities are and because of some of the procedural hamstrings that we're putting on both the plaintiff but also the defendant or potential defendant that settlement discussions are likely to be chilled in these cases because the parties are not going to see that they can have these discussions without having to assign some sort of fault.
And the defendant, as I read this, has no assurances short of acknowledging faults that the plaintiff isn't going to bring them into court anyway. Yeah, and
Representative Joy Springer
Unverified
27:02
if you look at that, and I represent people on both sides, plaintiff and defense, and I've represented plenty of people that have had consumer protection actions filed against them. And so if I'm representing a company like GoodRx and someone sends me this 30-day cure thing, I'm not advising them to send anything in writing. Because one thing if you do, the consumer could then turn over and give it to the attorney general and go,
look, here's the admission of liability right here. Because we're not talking about, in a court, settlement for, you know, a lot of times in court you'll go to mediation or you'll have settlement discussions and that's protected from disclosure in court. That wouldn't be applicable here. So there's no time that I would ever advise a client, okay, let's write a letter saying that we admit fault and that we're going to cure it. There's not going to be any time where that's really
Speaker 58
27:51
cured in those 30 days if there's a significant violation. Representative Beatty, you're recognized for a question.
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
28:00
I guess my question, you mentioned several times the foundation, and I'm a South Arkansas guy, so I'm somewhat familiar with the names that were mentioned there, but what type of work, what type of donations, contributions have they made in the last few years, and primarily where are those donations and contributions made? Are they all River Valley? I think for the most part
Representative Joy Springer
Unverified
28:26
River Valley and philanthropic work up there. It's a very new foundation.
It wasn't created long, I believe, before they passed away, and I think Mr. Burt passed away in
Speaker 58
28:36
2023. So it's very early on in the foundation's life. So can you tell me a little bit more about the work that they do and where their funds go? I'm not sure where their funds go. I'd have to look at the list and go back to their donor list and where their... Well,
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
28:52
yeah, I'm not asking where their funds come from Because what I've understood sort of from some of the testimony I've heard and heard you mention is that these were funds that they put into the foundation to start the foundation.
Yes. So I'm not so much concerned about where the other contributions come from. I want to know where their resources, where they spend their resources, what type of organizations,
what type of donations they make in the community and where that money is going to be focused. So,
Representative Joy Springer
Unverified
29:23
in general, I think it's mostly targeted in the River Valley, but I don't know specifics because I'm not the manager of the foundation. I just know
Speaker 54
29:31
generally they're there. I know that this is the only lawsuit that they've been filed.
Okay. Chairperson Richardson, you're recognized for a question.
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
29:41
Thank you, Madam Chair. So, you've said many times that you're not involved in the litigation for that lawsuit. That's correct. And now you're not familiar with the foundation itself as far as the specifics, as far as where they spend their money and what they're investing in. And I'm just curious, you're representing just the law firm in this case?
Speaker 53
30:14
Or who are you representing in speaking to the committee? Right. So the foundation hired me because
Representative Joy Springer
Unverified
30:21
they have an interest in consumer protection in general in Arkansas. They hired me because to speak against the bill. So that's why I'm here is to speak against the legislation.
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
30:32
Follow-up. You're recognized for a follow-up. Thank you. So you don't represent, the only people that you're representing is just the foundation on behalf of them to speak against this bill only, but you're not familiar with what the foundation really does.
Representative Joy Springer
Unverified
30:45
I am familiar with that the foundation does philanthropic work in
Speaker 54
30:49
the River Valley in supporting that, but I don't know the
Representative Joy Springer
Unverified
30:59
you. Representative Springer, you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Madam Chair. Hi. Representative. I'm not sure if you're familiar, but we recently, the legislature recently passed a bill, House Bill 1832, that related to constitutional issues,
and it basically stated that any type of lawsuit, facial, constitutional issues, be filed in the county where the event occurred. And I noticed this, and based upon that, I see in this particular, and it involves consumers all over the state. So I see in this particular bill that on page three, starting at lines 13 through 25,
it talks about where an individual could possibly file their lawsuit, and they have several options. The House Bill 1832 limited the filing of a constitutional issue, basically, wherever the action took place. So do you have any opinion about whether or not this particular bill should be similar to the one that was recently passed, House Bill 1832, where it said that the lawsuit needed to be filed in the county where it was the violation took place
or whether or not you have an opinion about this particular bill allowing? This is just hypothetical. I just wanted to know your opinion
about that. And I haven't read the bill you're referring to specifically, But assuming that it's, you know, saying that constitutional actions shall be filed in the court where the harm is, and I guess that's to avoid Pulaski County, you know, I guess it would depend on whether you're bringing an action under this, whether it was a constitutional action. And then I guess it would probably depend on whether you were talking about any constitutional issues within the case, separation of powers, whatnot.
So I think it would probably depend on the action itself and the facts of the case where it would have to be filed, something I can't depend on conclusively, but that could be an
Speaker 49
33:09
issue on whether this would conflict with that statute.
Representative Joy Springer
Unverified
33:16
You're recognized. I just wanted to get your opinion about that because it kind of concerned me that this particular bill allows that kind of situation to be handled all over, or is the other one limited to the place where,
and I know I see some people may not think that this is pertinent, but I think that it is. To me, I see a
connection between the two. So thank you
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
33:41
very much for your comment. Representative Shepard, you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Representative Springer, for the shout-out on House Bill 1832. Another of Senator Hester's bills, too. So, I have really mixed feelings on this bill. On one hand, you know, I think in some ways it's a bit broad.
I'm a little concerned about the retroactivity. On the other hand, from what's been described about this litigation, and as I look at the statute that was originally passed, I'm not sure that the statute as originally passed was, I've got some issues with it as well. But I'm really interested because ultimately, you know, I think so much of this comes down, at least in my mind, to what's the impact on this litigation. And so I would like to know, Senator Hester said that this litigation basically centers around what's on the card and how, whether a statement is bolded or not.
but can you tell me specifically what is the claim that's made, what is the alleged damage that has occurred, and has GoodRx corrected that potential, whatever potential harm it is, but there's still litigation pending? And perhaps Senator Hester, Representative Pilkington, can answer those when they come back to close. But, you know, ultimately, to me, that's where, that seems to be where so much of the concern is Because generally, I think we have been concerned about retroactivity.
I don't know that I can sit here and say it's never been done. And certainly, if it's within the purview of the legislature, then that's within our purview. I'm sure the court system will weigh in if that's the choice of the litigants. But I'd like to know, what are the claims? What is the alleged harm or damage? And then what is the status? Has there been any resolution of that? or has GoodRx taken any
Representative Kendra Moore
Unverified
35:34
action in response? Okay. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Joy Springer
Unverified
35:38
First, I'll say again, I'm not an attorney in the litigation. At the time I testified at the Senate Judiciary, I hadn't even read the complaint. I think I did a cursory review, so I'm not sure that I can even answer your question. I think it's, from my understanding, it's supposed to be more than just about the insurance provisions, not in bold font. But I couldn't tell you the specifics of the lawsuit, nor do I represent them in the lawsuit. So I don't want to get outside. I would encourage anybody that you can go on Court Connect, you can look at the complaint and see what the allegations are,
and take it straight from the horse's mouth instead of hearing it from me down at the other end of the table. That's where you're going to get the straightest facts. I also say that the foundation, talking about injury, I omitted that they have, I forgot that they did make a donation of $1 million to Arkansas Tech University. So that, I said River Valley, Arkansas Tech's in the River Valley. I'd forgotten about that donation. Representative Unger, you're recognized
for a question. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Representative Steve Unger
Unverified
36:45
I know you don't like this, but I'm out of your background with the Attorney General's office. Is there any junk lawsuit prevention bill that you could support? That's,
Representative Joy Springer
Unverified
36:57
of course, yeah, there's plenty to do out there. I don't know specifically, you know, here's the thing, you look at this bill, and I'm not saying that my client would support the bill if it was just about standing, but this bill isn't just about standing. That's the problem here.
We get past standing. We start talking about gunning it to make it only apply to when a company receives funds from the consumer. We talk about taking away attorney's fees. We talk about this cure period. This isn't about fixing junk lawsuits. If it was just about standing, then we could have that conversation. It would be a serious conversation. But I don't think we get to that conversation here because there are so many problems with the bill as written right now. If you vote on this, if you vote A on this because you're getting rid of junk lawsuits, you're throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Representative Steve Unger
Unverified
37:50
Follow up, ma'am. You're recognized. Thank you, ma'am. Is GoodRx involved in any lawsuits in any other state such as this? GoodRx? Yes, sir. I'm not sure. Thank you, ma'am. Representative Beatty, you're recognized for a question.
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
38:08
Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to follow back up so that I understand the relationship that you
have and the reason you're here today. We've kind of asked about the foundation. You had a little bit of information about it, but not a lot of information.
So do you represent the foundation, or do you represent maybe a principal or a member that's involved in the foundation? Because I'm having a little trouble understanding usually that's some type of relationship there where you understand who you're representing and your capacity here today. You're just here paid to come and speak against this bill. Is that, you know, that relationship? Yes, I don't represent
Representative Joy Springer
Unverified
38:54
them in any other context.
I don't represent them in helping set up the foundation or the daily runnings of the foundation. They reached out to me because I was in the consumer protection. I'm opting up here at the legislature, and I was in consumer protection, worked at the attorney general's office, asked me to look at the bill, asked me to give them my thoughts on the bill because they thought that it was watering down consumer protection laws, and they hired me
Speaker 58
39:17
to speak against it. Follow-up. You're recognized. Well, then, you know, I
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
39:22
could have appreciated that, but you clouded the water when you went into talking about the foundation with me
because it made it sound more like you had a relationship and you were the attorney for the foundation. And so I'll give you a little credit on that side. That relationship was not clear of what party you represented, what role you were playing. So you are here as the expert in consumer laws and consumer protection to speak against the bill. Yes, and any time I represent a client, I want
Speaker 85
39:53
to know a little bit about them, but I might not delve into every bit of their history.
You succeeded in that. Representative Eubanks, you're
recognized for a question. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Representative Jon S. Eubanks
Unverified
40:05
I have a question for the Chair. Is there anyone else signed up to speak against this bill? There's no one else signed up. Okay, well, now I have a question for the witness. You're recognized for your question. Sir, I appreciate you coming and expressing your opinion, but you don't seem to have enough facts to be able to share with us so that, you know, Speaker Shepard asked, I think, some questions that were very pertinent,
and, you know, if we had those answers, maybe the committee might make a different decision. But you, sir, don't seem to have any of that information regarding what was asked. So I'm wondering what you're doing here. Wouldn't you agree? Would you agree? No, I wouldn't, Representative.
Representative Joy Springer
Unverified
40:54
I told you while I was here I'm here to speak against the bill because it's bad consumer protection. Maybe this will make it more simple. Even if we could agree today, hypothetically, that that litigation that's being in Pope County right now is bad,
say I know nothing about it, let's say, you know, the naysayers are correct, that litigation is terrible, it still doesn't justify everything this bill does. I'm looking at this from a consumer protection standpoint, not from a lawsuit in Pope County standpoint. I'm looking at this from a standpoint of people going to an emergency room with a card. I'm looking at this from a cure period standpoint. I'm looking at this at a futuristic standpoint of a chilling effect this is going to have on consumer litigation in the future because they're not going to be able to get attorney's fees when they go try to file an action.
As I said before, I'm here today to testify that this bill would make the statute essentially useless. I'm not here to justify litigation that's going on in another county. I don't know if I
Representative Kendra Moore
Unverified
41:54
can make that any more clear. Representative Moore, you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Calhoun, I appreciate you coming down
here, but it seems to me that we, the Judiciary committee are being asked to rule in place of the court on this particular subject. And Madam Chair, I know there's no one else to speak for or against this bill, but I'm
just curious as to if there's someone that represents the plaintiffs or the defendant in the room in a legal capacity, if they're here and could come to the table, because we are being asked to essentially cast judgment on this lawsuit, and we must take the facts as they were given to us, and I find that a little difficult at this moment. Let me inquire. Is
there anyone in the room that wishes to come to the table to speak in favor of the bill? I
don't think there are any attorneys here in the room that represents either side.
Thank you. Representative, are you through with your question, Representative Moore? Yes. Representative Brown, you're recognized for a question. Thank you,
Representative Matt Brown
Unverified
42:58
Madam Chair. Mr. Calhoun, is there anything else in the code, I apologize this question was asked before I got here. Are there any other examples in our code where there is a provision similar to this where a plaintiff has to give 30 days notice where they can bring a
Speaker 85
43:10
lawsuit or a cure period, anything of that nature? I'm not sure of any off the
Representative Joy Springer
Unverified
43:16
top of my head. Specifically, if there are any cure periods,
I don't think they are. And I'm trying to rack my brain through the consumer protection statutes and
Speaker 49
43:24
try to think if there was something in the home solicitation front. But there's nothing exactly
Chair
Unverified
43:30
like these. Thank you. Representing Collins, you're
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
43:33
recognized for a question. Thank you. I guess this question is partly addressed to the committee. I mean, this is a witness. He's here to speak about the bill. He did speak about the bill. He's not supposed to have all answers about the litigation or getting into the details of who he is and what he represents,
I just think is not germane. And he's not really being expected, I don't think, to represent the party in the lawsuit because that lawsuit's not before us. The bill's before us. So I guess I would just ask that, I mean, would you agree that we could just take your testimony for what it is on the bill before us and not try to expect it to be more than that?
Representative Joy Springer
Unverified
44:18
Absolutely. This is about the legislation. This is about the future impact on Arkansas consumers.
This is not about a fight between alleged high-rise lawyers and a multi-whatever-dollar company, GoodRx, from another state. This is about prospective consumer protection. Representative Shepard, you're recognized for
a question. Thank you, Madam
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
44:37
Chair. And I guess I somewhat disagree with that because if there wasn't a lawsuit, then you probably wouldn't be here testifying. They probably wouldn't have sent somebody over to argue this or to give a testimony. But again, I come back to this question of you've raised the concerns of consumer protection
and I've asked about the damage, the potential damage, potential harm to consumers. I've looked at the complaint in the lawsuit. It looks like it centers largely around the card or the information that's provided when somebody, I guess, joins this. But you've brought up several times now about protecting consumers when they go to emergency rooms. So help me understand, what are you alluding to at that point about how does this protect consumers?
Representative Joy Springer
Unverified
45:30
How does the current statute protect consumers? If there's not a disclosure in there that it's not insurance, a consumer may and has or could rely on the card as insurance or think that it was insurance or do something that it didn't. You go to the emergency room, you get treatment, and you come out with a bill of however many hundreds or thousands or whatever it costs, but with
Speaker 54
45:55
no means to pay it. And I think that's the main example.
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
46:01
So what you're saying, if I'm understanding this correct, is that individuals may believe by receiving a card, this good RX card, that somehow they have health insurance or some type of prescription drug coverage. That's correct. The disclosures are
Representative Joy Springer
Unverified
46:20
meant to provide them a disclosure on the card saying this is not insurance. Okay, thank you. Representative Richardson,
you're recognized for a question.
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
46:33
Thank you, Madam Chair. So you just testified that someone may or has relied on this as insurance. Are you aware of any that have relied on this card and presented it as insurance?
Speaker 37
46:44
I do not represent anyone personally, but I am aware of them personally. You are aware of people that have used this, tried to use this as insurance, and were denied. Okay, thank you. Members, any other questions? Seeing no
further questions from the committee, thank you, Mr. Calhoun, for being here today.
We have no one else who has sought your excuse. Thank you
for being here. Thank you, Madam Chair. Senator Hester, you're recognized to come to the
Senator Bart Hester
Unverified
47:22
end of the table and close for your bill. I'll just start off real quick. You know, I appreciate the time and the questions today. As someone who represents the River Valley and part of Pope County, I can tell you this foundation has been around for a while. It's been around since 2011. It's not new, but it's been pretty inactive since their founders passed.
And from my understanding it has not done much in the last last few years and it's just merely passed through and so I just thought that context was important for the committee to know that And just someone who who works in the health care field. I think this is a good bill. GoodRx done a lot for for those people and for the community and help people save on drug costs and If there was a constituent of mine in Pope County who was harmed by GoodRx, I would want them to pay but they weren't and that's the reality and so and I think that's why this is a good piece of
legislation and I'll let Bart close with his comments. Thank
you members for your time again and I think that you know there was testimony that there are people that were harmed. I think if there was a person that was harmed they would be the plaintiff instead of a foundation. You know I think you guys are smart enough to know that if there's you know I heard in testimony a few minutes ago that there's no legal fees or at least uh to be awarded here if if that was if that was the case uh every lawyer or every lobbyist in the room wouldn't be hired right now right uh they
wouldn't a lawyer wouldn't have hired a lawyer to hire a lawyer to come testify right there are significant fees that someone is going to to end up paying on this uh again and i ask you as we as as you vote if this bill passes uh think think about what if it doesn't pass are your constituents any better? If it does pass, are they better? I think the answer to that question is absolutely yes. The people you represent will be better protected if this bill passes. I ask for a good vote. Members, Senator Hester
is closed for the bill. What are the wishes of the committee?
We have a motion do pass on the table. Is there any discussion of the motion? Seeing no discussion of the motion, all in favor of the motion do pass. Please say aye. Aye. All opposed say no. No. The ayes have it. The bill is passed. - We have a roll call. - Representative
Speaker 99
49:40
Shepard? - No. - Representative Shepard, no. Representative Eubanks? - Aye. - Representative Eubanks, aye.
Representative Tosh? - Aye. - Representative Tosh, aye. Representative Gonzalez? Representative Gonzalez? - Aye. - Representative Gasway? Representative Gasway? Representative Crawford? - Yes. Representative Crawford, yes. Representative Clowney, yes. Representative Clowney, yes. Representative Collins, no. Representative Collins, no. Representative Evans, no. Representative Evans, no. Representative McCullough, no. Representative McCullough, no. Representative Springer, no.
Representative Springer, no. Representative Beatty, yes. Representative Beatty, yes. Representative Hudson, no. Representative Hudson, no. Representative Moore, yes. Representative Moore, yes. Yes. Representative Brown? No. Representative Brown? No. Representative Unger? No. Representative Unger? No. Representative Richardson? Yes. Representative Richardson? Yes. Representative Pierce? Yes. Representative Pierce? Yes. Representative Underwood?
Yes. Representative Underwood? Yes. Chair votes yes. The bill is passed. Members, let's turn to Senate Bill 355.
Representative Underwood, if you'll go to the end of the table, we'll take up Senate
Representative Kendon Underwood
Unverified
51:35
bill 355 you recognize Ken Underwood State Representative District 16 this bill we heard this bill last week and the center center Bryant come and presented it and I thought I would give it another shot and get hopefully give it another vote so if you guys recall this bill is regarding obstructing
governmental operations. Um, if you are served a subpoena and you knowingly do not appear to testify at court, this gives, um, prosecutors another opportunity, uh, to prosecute those individuals who choose not to show up for court. I do, I don't know if this was stressed last time, but I do think, uh, and maybe Senator Bryant mentioned it. He did work with public defenders. He worked with some language with them. I think they were neutral on the bill. I also think this kind of um it's good for all parties because it's good for the court because it's going to help them
move their dockets along and it's also good for whether you're you're the prosecution or whether you're the defendant um it's good to get people in court to testify on your case and so um i'm happy to try to take any try to answer any questions members are there any questions
any questions seeing no questions we have no one who's signed up to
speak for against the bill representative underwood you're recognized closed for senate bill 355 i'm closed i'd make a motion do pass members we have a motion to do pass on the table is there any discussion of the motion
seeing no discussion all in favor please say aye any opposed say no the ayes
have it the bill is passed thank you committee senate bill 629 anyone in the room for that seeing no one here to move that one forward, we'll move that one to deferred. House Bill 1980, we'll take that one and move it to deferred. Members, that clears our calendar and before we, well, before everybody jumps up, I do want to take a moment to publicly thank our
people who have been with us all session and hung in there with us, Colby and Emily. Members, let's give them a round of applause. On behalf of the committee, we really do appreciate all that you've done for us. You've kept us in line. You've stayed right there with us, and we appreciate the hard work. Members, we are at the end. Thank you so much for committee, for all your work, for your diligent questions throughout the session, and for moving things forward and stopping bad things.
Agenda
CONCUR IN SENATE AMENDMENT
Number Sponsor Subtitle
HB1877 S. Meeks CONCERNING CRIMINAL OFFENSES RELATED TO POSSESSION OF SEXUALLY EXPLICIT MATERIAL THAT DEPICTS A CHILD; AND TO INCLUDE A COMPUTER GENERATED IMAGE THAT IS INDISTINGUISHABLE FROM THE IMAGE OF A
CHILD.
HB1865 Vaught TO CREATE AN ENHANCED PENALTY FOR CERTAIN OFFENSES AGAINST A CHILD.
RE-REFERRED TO COMMITTEE
Number Sponsor Subtitle
HB1980 Gazaway TO CREATE THE TECHNOLOGY AND ENERGY FOR SUSTAINABLE LOGISTICS ACT (TESLA); AND TO ADD ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING STATIONS TO THE DEFINITION OF "CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE".
REGULAR AGENDA
Number Sponsor Subtitle
SB355 J. Bryant TO AMEND THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF OBSTRUCTING GOVERNMENTAL OPERATIONS.
SB629 Caldwell TO ALLOW AN OFFICER OF A CLOSELY HELD CORPORATION TO REPRESENT THE CORPORATION IN COURT FOR THE PURPOSE OF EVICTION
PROCEEDINGS AND UNLAWFUL DETAINER PROCEEDINGS.
SB441 Hester TO CREATE THE JUNK LAWSUIT PREVENTION ACT OF 2025.
DEFERRED BILLS
Number Sponsor Subtitle
HB1033 McCullough TO CREATE THE "ARKANSAS RED FLAG LAW"; AND TO CREATE AN EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER AND WARRANT.
Notice: Silence your cell phones. Keep your personal conversations to a minimum. Observe restrictions
HB1141 R. Scott Richardson TO CREATE CRIMINAL OFFENSES RELATED TO DECEPTIVE AND INJURIOUS MEDIA IN THE COURSE OF ELECTION CAMPAIGNS.
HB1136 Achor TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE CRIMINAL RECORD SEALING ACT OF 2013; AND TO PROHIBIT A COURT FROM GRANTING A UNIFORM PETITION WHEN A PERSON IS SUBJECT TO AN ACTIVE WARRANT OF ARREST.
HB1430 K. Moore TO AMEND THE DEFINITIONS UNDER THE DOMESTIC ABUSE ACT OF 1991.
HB1431 K. Moore TO AMEND THE DEFINITIONS UNDER THE DOMESTIC ABUSE ACT OF 1991; AND TO PROHIBIT THE ISSUANCE OF AN ORDER OF PROTECTION ENJOINING A PARTY FROM ENGAGING IN COURSE OF CONTROL OR DISTURBING THE PEACE EX PARTE.
HB1481 Long TO CREATE THE ANTI-ATF COMMANDEERING ACT; AND TO PROHIBIT THE PROVISION OF MATERIAL AID AND SUPPORT FOR ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL FIREARMS LAWS.
HB1535 Duffield TO PROVIDE AN ENHANCED SENTENCE FOR PERSONS CONVICTED OF RAPE OF A CHILD TWELVE YEARS OF AGE OR YOUNGER; TO PERMIT THE
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS TO ADMINISTER MEDROXYPROGESTERONE ACETATE TREATMENT FOR CHEMICAL CASTRATION.
HB1553 Ray TO REPEAL THE PROHIBITION AGAINST THE SALE AND DISTRIBUTION OF NOVELTY LIGHTERS.
HB1655 Long TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF HUMAN SMUGGLING; AND TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF HARBORING ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS.
HB1473 Pilkington TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING HEALTH-RELATED CASH DISCOUNT CARDS.
HB1676 Womack TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING GARNISHMENT AGAINST THE STATE OR A SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE; AND TO ALLOW FOR INCOME TAX REFUNDS TO BE SUBJECT TO GARNISHMENT BY JUDGMENT CREDITORS.
SB321 J. Bryant TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE STATE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE FUND.
HB1823 Duffield TO ESTABLISH THE DISRUPT EXPLICIT FORGED IMAGES AND
NONCONSENSUAL EDITS ACT OF 2025; AND TO CLARIFY THE RIGHTS FOR AN INDIVIDUAL AFFECTED BY NONCONSENSUAL ACTIVITIES INVOLVING INTIMATE DIGITAL FORGERIES.
HB1765 Underwood TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING DOMESTIC BATTERING IN THE THIRD DEGREE; AND TO AMEND THE OFFENSE CLASSIFICATION ENHANCEMENT BASED ON PRIOR ACTS.
HB1871 Gazaway TO REQUIRE A PERIOD OF INCARCERATION FOR DEFENDANTS WHO
REPEATEDLY VIOLATE THE TERMS OF THEIR PROBATION OR SUSPENDED SENTENCE.
HB1664 K. Brown TO AMEND "QUINCY'S LAW" CONCERNING PHYSICAL EXAMS AND OTHER TESTING IN AN INVESTIGATION INVOLVING ALLEGED ABUSE UNDER THE CHILD MALTREATMENT ACT; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY.
HB1754 Gonzales TO CREATE THE PRIVATE PROPERTY PROTECTION ACT; AND TO PROHIBIT CERTAIN PROPERTY USE RESTRICTIONS BY GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES.
HB1663 K. Brown TO PROHIBIT AN AWARD OF ALIMONY OR TERMINATE ALIMONY FOR A PERSON WHO HAS BEEN FOUND TO HAVE COMMITTED AN ACT OF CIVIL OR CRIMINAL DOMESTIC ABUSE WHEN THE VICTIM WOULD BE THE PAYOR OF ALIMONY.
HB1947 Clowney TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE OFFENSE OF POSSESSION OF DRUG PARAPHERNALIA.
HB1885 Barnett CONCERNING LAW ENFORCEMENT; AND TO REQUIRE A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER INVOLVED IN A DEADLY USE OF FORCE INCIDENT TO BE PLACED ON
TEMPORARY LEAVE AND ATTEND THERAPY.
HB1978 Gazaway TO ADD AN ADDITIONAL JUDGESHIP TO THE SEVENTEENTH DISTRICT OF THE STATE DISTRICT COURT SYSTEM.
HB1948 Joey Carr TO AMEND THE CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH THE OFFENSE OF NEGLIGENT HOMICIDE IS COMMITTED; AND TO REPEAL THE ABILITY OF A PROSECUTING ATTORNEY OR DEFENDANT TO SUBPOENA CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS BEFORE A HEARING OR TRIAL.
HB1953 Torres TO PROVIDE FOR A SURCHARGE TO BE ASSESSED ON INMATE PHONE CALLS TO OFFSET THE COSTS OF SECURITY NEEDS ASSOCIATED WITH INMATE
COMMUNICATIONS.
HB1678 Long TO AMEND THE ABORTION-INDUCING DRUGS SAFETY ACT TO INCREASE THE CRIMINAL PENALTIES AND CLARIFY THE CIVIL PENALTIES.
SB277 J. Bryant TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE CRIMINAL RECORD SEALING ACT OF 2013; AND TO PERMIT THE FILING OF A NEW UNIFORM PETITION TO SEAL A
MISDEMEANOR VIOLATION OF THEFT OF PROPERTY AFTER TEN YEARS HAVE ELAPSED SINCE THE THEFT.
Documents
| Title | Type | Pages | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agenda — JUDICIARY COMMITTEE- HOUSE, Apr 15, 2025 | Agenda | 3 | Official source ↗ |
Speakers
Representative Carol Dalby Chair
Unverified
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
Speaker 6
Representative DeAnn Vaught
Unverified
Senator Bart Hester
Unverified
Representative Joy Springer
Unverified
Speaker 31
Representative Nicole Clowney
Unverified
Speaker 34
Chair
Unverified
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
Speaker 46
Speaker 49
Speaker 51
Representative Justin Gonzales
Unverified
Speaker 58
Speaker 35
Representative Ashley Hudson
Unverified
Speaker 54
Speaker 53
Speaker 77
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
Representative Kendra Moore
Unverified
Representative Steve Unger
Unverified
Speaker 85
Representative Jon S. Eubanks
Unverified
Representative Matt Brown
Unverified
Speaker 37
Speaker 99
Representative Kendon Underwood
Unverified